Lets Start Making Our Own Certs.....he Is???

Dan,
Once again you are absolutely right, a review of a listing with 3-4 words barely meets anyone's definition of 'educational'. I plan on adding more encouragement (as noted in the 'To Do' list) to flush out the instructions for writing better reviews. But just like a forum, you can only do so much get folks to adhere to the best posting practices. And please keep in mind that so far (one month into the project) I am the sole developer and funding it from my own pocket. Bill Weiss has been a huge supporter/co-founder with this project and without his support it would never would have gotten off the ground. Developing the concept, designing the SQL database backend, coding the interface, and getting the word out has not been a trivial task but we are pleased with the progress after only 35 days.

Databases are by definition of limited value until you get them populated with quality data (ye old 'garbage in, garbage out' saying). Until there are hundreds of reviews the value will remain limited, I only hope that folks give it the time it needs to grow (and give me time to tweak and improve it in real time).

The site currently supports anyone with an opinion; think of it like a web site that has reviews of movies. If it is open for anyone to review a movie you may consider the posts a bit differently than if it contained only reviews from well known resources like Siskel and Ebert. Some you may want to completely disregard while others will carry more weight with you. Those which are anonymous may not carry the influence of those which the reviewer is recognized and well respected. But note that there is support for 'roles' that could be implemented in the future. If it grows it is certainly possible to build upon the process by 'reviewing the reviews' via the assignment of higher experienced resources to that role.
Regards
Don

Hi Don,

This isn't the thread for it, but once I sign up and look at the submission interface, I may have some suggestions with respect to compartmentalization and funneling of information that may make submissions a bit more informative and filterable (and the data ultimately more useful to the end viewer) without the process becoming odious.

Thanks,

-Dan

(Off topic, very sorry. Direct messaging not available to me as a new member.)

Attention: 51studebaker

Don, I would like to know more about your interest in an "open source metadata database specification" that you mentioned above in this thread. This is a subject of very great and deep interest to me (particularly database AS a wiki and not just a wiki run by a database). If there are any threads or links about your interest that you can point me to, I would appreciate it. But that subject needs its own thread. Otherwise direct contact is welcomed. Thanks.

Jay Smith

I am probably not allowed to put an email address here: http://www.jaysmith.com/contact.html

I've got a whole pile of thoughts on this.

First, I have ZERO issue with a dealer offering a written guarantee. In fact, I feel that it's very commendable should they do so.

However these "certs" cross a line IMO. Like others have mentioned, these are like the coin self slanders and nonsense grading companies who grossly overgrade coins. These are NOT good for the hobby. Period. Remember when that idiot faker "schuylerac" was making their own certs? That was laughable. It how many newbies got hurt by them? What happens when some newbie buys a stamp from these guys and then in the future sends it to Bill Weiss or the PF or PSE or APEX or whomever and it comes back faulty?

As far as expertising services go, they all screw up. 2 days ago I got a package in the mail from a pile of things that I had dropped off at the PF, one of them was a Scott 70b, a steel blue. I bought it from a dealer with an APEX cert that said it was a color changeling of a #78. No kids, not with that impression and it was on thin paper. It now has a PFC stating that it's a 70b. It also mentions a small filled thin which APEX missed. Today I got a nice stamp in the mail from Ken Srail with a 1985 clean PFC stating that it's a #70, a Red Lilac. Ken's notes, which I agree with, are that it's a brown lilac.

Does that mean that APEX or the PF are incompetent? No. But everyone makes mistakes and at the end of the day you're paying for an opinion, nothing more.

As far as knowledge goes, I feel pretty comfortable with what I collect but then I've been actively collecting 24c 1861s since the mid-late 90s and did basically grow up around classic US stamps. I was aware of the rare 1861s when I was less than 10 years old. Good story, I once pointed out a faked cover to my father when I was around 9 years old. (F grill on a Bremen-Hamburg mail cover) at a stamp show. The dealer was shocked that some kid caught what he had missed haha.

But thats how you learn, experience and time.

with regard to your Red Lilac/Brown Lilac, it should be remembered that 1985 was 30 years ago, and who knows what has happened to that stamp in between. Shades can change over time, especially fairly subtle ones.

Agreed. However it's not the first Red/Brown lilac that I've seen them confuse. It's not the end of the world, these days they get them spot on and they have almost always gotten the important shades right.